of his elected ones. Bishoprics were to be found in Argeș, later in Târgoviște and Bucharest, in Râmnic, in Buzău for the southern principality, in Cetatea-Albă, then in Suceava, in Rădăuți, in Roman, and lastly in Huși also, as regards the north. The priest always remained a free member of the religious organisation. He hardly ever received — I know of no case to the contrary, at any rate—instructions from his bishop, who had the power (not commonly exercised) of deposing or of judging him for breaches of the laws of the country which, until it came under the influences of French philosophy in the 18th century, had no written constitution. Between the bishops no close cooperation was maintained, the archbishop (or Metropolitan as he was called), although, as in Moldavia at the close of the 16th century, having nearly the attributes of a Patriarch, akin to that of Moscow, not being able to interfere in the administration of dioceses other than his own. The bishop was called to the Synod, which united all holders of episcopal seats; he took part in the consecration of his colleagues, three being required by canonical law (though foreign bishops could be invited to complete the number); he represented, before the ruling prince, the national church as a whole, being admitted to the councils at his side. But this was all. As necessity arose for reforming the life of the clergy, the initiative was taken, as in Moldavia, under Prince Miron Bamovski, in the first decades of the 17th century, by the Crown.
This before the philosophical ideas of the 18th century made the sovereign also master of the Church. Thus, Nicholas Constantine Mavrocordato introduced the spoken language in the liturgy and, half a century later, Alexander Ipsilanti, also a Phanariote, changed the conditions of life in the Wallachian monasteries by decree. So great and
